animalia biblicahttps://ancientanimals.wordpress.com
animals in biblical & ancient tradition, ecology, theology and the environmentWed, 03 May 2017 17:54:27 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/https://secure.gravatar.com/blavatar/100622df1fe245ea86fba69fce4c2dfd?s=96&d=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.wp.com%2Fi%2Fbuttonw-com.pnganimalia biblicahttps://ancientanimals.wordpress.com
I can’t tell you how much I LOVE this – Kim Haines-Eitzen’s acoustic soundscapeshttps://ancientanimals.wordpress.com/2017/05/01/i-cant-tell-you-how-much-i-love-this-kim-haines-eitzens-acoustic-soundscapes/
https://ancientanimals.wordpress.com/2017/05/01/i-cant-tell-you-how-much-i-love-this-kim-haines-eitzens-acoustic-soundscapes/#respondMon, 01 May 2017 21:25:24 +0000http://ancientanimals.wordpress.com/?p=439]]>Every once in a while you stumble across one of those research projects which is so fascinating, so perfectly in tune with your own loves, interests and quirks that it is almost as if it were written for you and you alone? There is also a particular feeling when you meet up with a colleague or workmate in a different environment and see them in totally new way (like the time when I realised that one of the lecturers from the drama department not only played the saxophone, but had played Andy Sheppard!). These are exactly the sensations I experience when I recently came across Kim Haines-Eitzen’s research, ‘Acoustic encounters in the late ancient desert‘ on her Listening to the Desert blog.

Kim Haines-Eitzen is the Professor of Ancient Mediterranean Religions at Cornell University, specialising in Early Christianity, Early Judaism, and Religion in Late Antiquity. I was first introduced to her work by my postgraduate supervisors at the University of Birmingham, where her book, Guardians of Letters: Literacy, power and the transmitters of early Christian literature , was causing much excitement and unsettling a few long held assumptions about scribal activity and the transmission of texts. However, recently, through the wonders of the ‘twitter-shere’, I have become aware of her interests in a very different field: goat-herding (albeit, part-time)! I checked to see if this @KimHainesEitzen was the very same one who wrote the book that I had devoured a number of years previously. Yes, it was! As sheep and goats in antiquity graze upon the epicentre of my research passion, finding a scholar with similar interests was like finding a fellow dog-lover in a cat’s beauty salon. However, it hasn’t stopped there. Having checked her blog to see if she had any insights into goat husbandry and herding, I found that she is working on this incredible project that,

…focuses on the environmental sounds of desert landscapes as imagined and experienced in the literature of late ancient monasticism from Egypt and Palestine (ca. 200-600 CE).

Making field recordings in the Negev and Judaean deserts, as well as those from the deserts of the American Southwest, Kim is compiling a collection of audio recordings to create an acoustic soundscape within which to explore the desert world of late Antiquity that helped to shape and influence later Christian traditions.

Theoretically, I’m influenced by phenomenology, affect and sensation theories, sounds studies, and ecocriticism as I attempt to rehabilitate an acoustic dimension to both environmental landscapes and the religious literatures and practices that are shaped by these landscapes (and, in turn, shape the landscapes themselves in multiple ways).

I find this such a wonderfully imaginative and powerfully compelling idea. I first discovered aural soundscapes after finding a rather battered copy of David Troop’s Ocean of Sound CD being discarded by my local public library. From then on I’ve become hooked on the immersive power and qualities of the acoustic world; whether they be soothing tones of Eric Simms as he captures the sounds of oyster catcher’s and terns at Blakney Harbour or the East Coast salt marshes, the haunting depth of Lana Del Rey’sTerrence Loves You, Andy Sheppard’s melding of city noise with music, the proliferation of ‘natural world’ recordings (of differing quality), or Peter Handford’s beautifully evocative recordings of steam trains within their 1950/1960s soundscapes; – the steady beat of the ‘northbound freight’, a Stanier ‘Black Five’ climbing Greenholme summit on a blustery May day amid the sound of sheep, curlew and the soft patter of rain is utter magic.

Often these ‘sound worlds’ offer a chance to escape and are often, rather shamelessly, marketed to do exactly that. However, they teach us much more than that. As doctoral student, researching the oral aspect of early Christian textual transmission (hence my ‘encounter’ with Kim’s work), I quickly became aware that we can be so captivated by the oral that we can often overlook (and sometimes dismiss) the aural. My burgeoning interest/love in aural soundscapes presented to me the importance of the ambient (generally unconscious) aural environment in which we live and make sense of our worlds. The acoustic world is important, even if we remain largely unaware of it.

Kim’s aim is to explore the “dynamic relationships between the sonic dimensions of environmental landscapes and the religious imagination.”

Using the language of soundscape ecology, I explore geophony (e.g.,sounds of wind, thunder, water), biophony (e.g., sounds of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and insects), and anthrophony (e.g., the sounds of humans chanting, singing, praying) to ask how a particular landscape–real or imagined–works dynamically to shape religious thought, literature, and practice.

Kim’s site offers 6 recordings from Israel– the ‘Night winds of Nahal Zaror’ is sheer poetry and delight – and 10 from the American Southwest – I defy anyone not to love the elemental wonder of ‘Thunder on Portal-Paradise Road, Arizona’.

Listening to Kim’s recordings reminds me of reading Annie Dillard for the first time. Her Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, the way she captured the natural world in word, the language, the pictures she painted, was so very, VERY different from the writers who had become literary mentors and guides; Richard Jefferies, Edward Thomas, Gilbert White, Richard Mabey, Roger Deakin, etc. etc. I’d noticed it already, a little, in other US writers (Thoreau, Mary Oliver, etc). It is not that Dillard is more poetic (or less), more realistic (or less), more sentimental (or less). The environment shapes our sensitivities. We may all be fellow citizens of the globe, but our natural worlds are very different. Our ‘wildernesses’ are contained, trimmed and carefully maintained. They are not really WILDernesses, but they are places we can go to remember, via our collective memory, of those times when they were once wild and terrifying. I love Edward Thomas’ work, but I suspect he would have struggled to find the beauty and inspiration of the arid scrub of the American deserts. He could have never written a ‘Tinkers Creek’, just as Annie Dillard would write a very different book (had she been alive then) about the Icknield Way that Thomas had known.

I get the feeling that for a project that aims to create the acoustic soundscapes of the late ancient desert, Kim Haines-Eitzen is the best placed to do so… and I don’t (primarily) mean geographically.

]]>https://ancientanimals.wordpress.com/2017/05/01/i-cant-tell-you-how-much-i-love-this-kim-haines-eitzens-acoustic-soundscapes/feed/0goode2014“And the fly is saying…”: On flies, the campus, and the Biblehttps://ancientanimals.wordpress.com/2017/04/17/and-the-fly-is-saying-on-flies-the-campus-and-the-bible/
https://ancientanimals.wordpress.com/2017/04/17/and-the-fly-is-saying-on-flies-the-campus-and-the-bible/#commentsMon, 17 Apr 2017 08:46:31 +0000http://ancientanimals.wordpress.com/?p=258]]>Newman University is situated next to a reservoir and, over the last few days, the current system of very warm air over Britain has resulted in the (sort of) annual ‘infestation’ of insects on the Newman campus. I have to admit to rather enjoying the sight of them, dancing lazily in loose veils in the soft afternoon sun and their sudden appearance on a paper I am reading or scurrying across the desk. However, I am also aware that, for those living in halls, it can create feelings that are far less poetic! Nevertheless, it got me thinking about flies in the Bible and the wider Ancient Near Eastern traditions.

If I am in the minority among those living and working at Newman for rather relishing this phenomenon, I also have to concede that I appear to be a bit of an oddity where the ancients are concerned too! Flies appear to have been universally disliked, or at least, viewed as worthless pests and nuisances.

A Torment

Probably the most famous instances of flies in the Bible relate to those that took part in one of the 10 plagues of Egypt. Immediately following the plague of כֵּן (‘ken’ – gnat’ or older translations ‘lice’), Exodus 8:20-32 describes the third plague as עָרֹב (arov), a swarm. Unfortunately, it does not tell us what exactly it was a swarm of – nor do the subsequent references (e.g. Pss 78:45, 105:31). Jewish and Christian biblical tradition assume that it was a swarm of flies. This is supported by the LXX that translates this as ‘a large number or multitude) of dog-fly’ (ἡ κυνόμυιαπλῆθος) – a species of fly (Stomoxys calcitrans) that is known as a blood-sucking pest to all who keep livestock.

The association between flies (and particularly swarms of them) with divine punishment is also found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Isaiah (7:18) describes Egypt as the זְבוּב (zevuv) or ‘fly’ that God will use to exert his vengeance. The neo-Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar is also referred to as a type of fly, this time as a ‘gadfly’, or ‘biting fly’ (קֶ֫רֶץ – qerets) in Jeremiah 46:20.

The fly also appears, once again, in a negative way, in Ecclesiastes. Here, the Teacher (Quoheleth) tells us that:

Dead flies make the perfumer’s ointment give off a foul odour;
so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honour.

Eccl 10:1 (NRSV)

Other Ancient Near Eastern literature don’t treat the poor fly with any greater respect. Its habit of feeding on corpses and wounds, not unreasonably, closely associates it with death and disease. Yamauchi (2016: 49) notes that one Ugaritic text from Ras Ibn refers to the “expulsion of flies that are the cause of a patient’s sickness.” He also (2016:52) points to the numerous (negative) references to flies in Homer, which again, view these insects as a nuisance (at best) and a malevolent torment (at worse).

Good news for the fly

This rather damning presentation of the fly and its purpose here on earth might, if you are a fly, be all rather depressing. After all, research shows that they have an important ecological part to play. Not only are they a vital source of food for many animals (and some plants), they also have an strategic role in pollination, breaking down waste and rotting carcasses, etc. Therefore, it is nice to see that, even in antiquity, not everyone saw them as a worthless nuisance.

Although still possibly because of the negative association between the fly and death we do have instances of a more positive use of the fly. In Egypt, flies made of gold were awarded as medals to soldiers. Yamauchi (2016:50) speculates that this might have been to signify their proximity with death on the battlefield or that they caused the death of enemy soldiers.

It is not until we get to the Rabbinic era do we get an attempt to view the fly in a more positive way. In the Jerusalem Talmud there is a dialogue between the prophet Elijah and Rabbi Nehorai. Elijah asks the Rabbi, “Why did God create insects and creeping things in his world?” To which the Rabbi responded:

They were created to serve a need. When God’s creatures sin, he looks upon them and says, ‘Lo, I sustain those creatures that serve no purpose, all the more must I sustain those creatures that serve some purpose.’

y. Ber.9.2 (from Yamauchi, 2016:55)

However, my favourite reference to the fly comes from the Jewish 10th century CE Perek Shirah that is often seen as a hymn or song that ALL creation sings to God. Among the section recording the ‘songs’ of the flying and swimming creatures we find, once again, the זְבוּב (fly).

The song of the fly

The fly, when Israel is not busying itself with the Torah, is saying, “The voice said, ‘Call out.’ And I said, ‘What shall I call out? All flesh is grass, and all its grace is as the flower of the field.’ …The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God shall endure forever.’ ‘I will create a new expression of the lips; Peace, peace for him who is far off and for him who is near, says God; and I shall heal him.”

The fly’s song, comprising a composite of texts from Isaiah (40:6,8; 57:19), captures perfectly the ancient associations with death and corruption, but locates them within an attitude of hope and grace.

]]>https://ancientanimals.wordpress.com/2017/04/17/and-the-fly-is-saying-on-flies-the-campus-and-the-bible/feed/1goode2014Insect at Newmanstable fly2,000-Year-Old Pet Cemetery Unearthed in Egypt – Archaeology Magazinehttps://ancientanimals.wordpress.com/2016/12/02/2000-year-old-pet-cemetery-unearthed-in-egypt-archaeology-magazine/
https://ancientanimals.wordpress.com/2016/12/02/2000-year-old-pet-cemetery-unearthed-in-egypt-archaeology-magazine/#commentsFri, 02 Dec 2016 20:23:45 +0000http://ancientanimals.wordpress.com/?p=247]]>A report from the University of Delaware detailing excavations at the Red Sea port city of Berenike, Egypt, includes the finding of a 2,000 year old ‘pet’ cemetery containing the remains of 17 dogs and cats, some still wearing their iron collars and attended by jewelry.

The ancient Egyptians’ love for their cats was well known to the ancient historians – although we need to treat their accounts with a certain amount of caution – Herodotus ( II: 66-67) describes the funerary processes, including embalmation, following the natural death of a cat [dog lover’s will be pleased to note that canines are also included!]. Diodorus Siculus (1st cent BCE) writes that even the unintentional killing of a cat was a capital offence:

“Whoever kills a cat in Egypt is condemned to death, whether he committed this crime deliberately or not. The people gather and kill him. An unfortunate Roman, who accidentally killed a cat, could not be saved, either by King Ptolemy of Egypt or by the fear which Rome inspired.

Such was the Egyptian’s veneration for the cat, Polyaenus (Stratagems VII:9) provides an account of the Battle of Pelusium in 525 BCE, between Pharaoh Psametik III and the Persian leader Cambyses II in which cats played a strategic role. Polyaenus writes that aware of the reverence with which the Egyptians held the cat, Cambyses ordered that images of the cat-god Bastet be painted on his soldiers’ shields. Furthermore, he placed before his front-line all those animals, including cats, that he knew the Egyptians held dear. Fearing to injure the animals the Egyptian army took flight and was massacred. After the battle, it is reported that the cats were thrown into the faces of the defeated Egyptians by Cambyses, disgusted that a nation should surrender to ensure the safety of animals.

What is really interesting is that this find points to practises and attitudes relating to a multi-cultural, non-aristocratic levels of society.

“What makes this unique is (despite) the very rough circumstances in which these people are living, they still manage to find the time and effort to have companion animals with them,”

A recent study by a team of scientists and archaeologists from the Universities of York and Bristol, together with colleagues from the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, have reported evidence of dairy production and processing in northern Mediterranean farming communities from Neolithic times. The identification of milk and bovine carcass fats in over 500 pottery vessels, as well as a study of faunal remains for slaughter patterns, at over 82 sites from the 7th-5th millennia BCE suggests that dairy farming was an important (if localised) element within farming communities at this time. The report helps to provide a clearer picture of the place and role of cattle exploitation in Neolithic Mediterranean farming and, although the research is centred on northern sites, it could strengthen the case for a mixed agricultural economy in the southern Levant.

The traditional view that the Israelite nation emerged from nomadic tribes has recently been challenged by numerous scholars (for example see, Khazanov, 1983; Hiebert, 1996; Borowski, 1998; Sasson, 2008). Anthropological and archaeological evidence has refused to sit easily with the old tripartite, cultural-evolutionary model that premeates so much of biblical studies. This 18th/19th century theory (championed by scholars such as Wellhausen, Alt, von Rad and Noth) contends that human societies progress in a linear manner through three distinct phases: Hunter-gatherer > nomadic pastoralism > sedentary (agrarian) farming. The references to cattle (בָּקָר – ba.qar; ) in early strata Hebrew texts – particularly those relating to the Patriarchal History – indicate a close association with its past (in the form of cultural aetiology) and the husbandry of cattle. Even the figure who traditionally has been most equated with nomadism (Abraham) is described as owning cattle (for example, Gen 15:9-10; 18:7-8; 21:27; 24:35).

Cattle require resource rich environments. Furthermore, unlike caprids (goats and sheep), they are incapable of travelling the distances normally needed for pastoral nomadism, with their grazing area restricted to a radius of 8-16 km from water which is less than half that managed by caprids (Borowski, 1998:74; Sasson, 2008:42). This distance is even shorter during hot, dry seasons. Sasson (2008:42) also notes that, unlike caprids, cows are forced to stand still while grazing which further severely hinders the mobility needed to sustain a nomadic economy. References within the Hebrew Bible to ownership of cattle by the, supposedly nomadic, patriarchs points to a much more sedentary lifestyle.

Of all the animals attributed to Israel’s ancestors, cattle are the clearest indicator of a sedentary society.

Hiebert (1996:92)

Ploughing in the Plain of Jezreel (c.1925). Image: Bible Archaeology.

The presence of cattle within ancient Israel has long been attested archaeologically. Sasson’s (2008:122 ) comparative analysis of faunal remains across 70 sites (covering differing geographical terrains and rural/urban settlement types from early Bronze Age to 1970s) indicates that, on average, cattle husbandry has never exceeded 20% of the entire livestock. In less resource-rich regions (notably the hill and desert country of the southern Levant), the average was closer to just 15%. Borowski (1998:75) argues that although milk and dung were important factors in their domestication, their lack of wool/hair meant that their other useful by-products (meat, hide, etc.) were only available after slaughter.

The report highlights the use of milk and dairy products that, ostensibly, would make the ownership of cattle highly prized. Under optimum conditions, cattle are capable of producing milk in much greater quantities than either sheep or goats. Sasson (2008:112-114) notes that, although much less protein rich than ewe of goats’ milk, on average, a cow can produce approx 450 litres of milk per year. This can be contrasted with a single ewe’s yield of only 50 l/yr and a goat’s yield of 75 l/yr. Furthermore cows are capable of producing much more meat; one animal can produce 120kg of usable meat, compared with the 25kg per sheep and 17.5 kg per goat. However, they are extremely reliant on scarce resources and could endanger sparse ecological resources that could more efficiently be used for the rearing of goats and sheep. Consequently, in this less resource-rich environment (the biblical Canaan), cattle tended to be kept in small numbers and principally used for agrarian work (ploughing, pulling carts, etc.) (Sasson, 2008:44-45).

[Cattle] are primarily raised in the hill country as draft animals, being used to plow (sic) the fields for the production of grain. Thus their high profile among the ancestor’s possessions most likely reflects an economy involved in intensive cultivation.

Hiebert (1998:92)

Hiebert’s contention is sustained by Sasson’s (2008) evidence for early subsistence, mixed-farming economies. Such economies were based on a balance between pastoralism, based on transhumance (fixed seasonal patterns of movement around a permanent home-site) rather than nomadism, and sedentary, agrarian cultivation.

Therefore the low proportion of cattle (ca. 15%) in many southern Levantine sites was aimed at sustaining the equilibrium between the survival subsistence strategy and the demand for plow (sic) beasts.

Sasson (2008:122)

Although relating to more northerly sites, the above report, identifying the exploitation of cattle, particularly for their milk, substantiates the claim for (very) early sedentary, subsistence, mixed-farming economies (Neolithic). The report identified that this was localised, but, nevertheless, the development of technologies to produce dairy products points to a trend towards the establishment of more permanent farming communities. Whilst it is accepted that the less ecologically resource-rich locations of the southern Levant might have provided a barrier to such dairy farming/production (see Sasson, 2008), the report’s findings provide valuable clues to the early farming communities within the Canaanite region and lends further support to their more sedentary roots.

]]>https://ancientanimals.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/our-response-to-the-autumn-statement-2016-the-wildlife-trusts/feed/0goode2014Rough deal for hired hands? John 10:12https://ancientanimals.wordpress.com/2016/11/26/rough-deal-for-hired-hands-john-1012/
https://ancientanimals.wordpress.com/2016/11/26/rough-deal-for-hired-hands-john-1012/#respondSat, 26 Nov 2016 11:57:34 +0000http://ancientanimals.wordpress.com/?p=111]]>‘The hired hand, who is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away—and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.’ [NRSV]

1938: A Bedouin shepherd carrying a young lamb on the hills of Palestine

John 10: 1-18 contains two of the seven so-called ‘I am’ (εγω ειμι) statements that characterise the teaching of Jesus in John’s Gospel; the gate (v.9) and the shepherd (v.11).*

However, unlike the other εγω ειμι statements, this metaphor is developed in a much richer way. For the image to work, it is contrasted with two negative and opposing images – ‘the thief’ (vv. 1 & 8-10) and ‘the hired hand’ (vv. 11-13). Unsurprisingly, attention is generally placed upon the image of the Good Shepherd, the focus of this teaching (παροιμια – proverb/parable), and most commentaries tend to dismiss these figures as little more than a rhetorical device (for example, Carson, 1991).

Nevertheless, the choice of these opposing images, particularly the figure of ‘the hired hand’ (μισθωτος), can tell us about, not only the historical context of this story, but also hint at possible developments of the Jesus tradition within sections of the early church.

LOTS of Sheep, BIG business

The figure of the shepherd would have been familiar to those hearing these words being read. Sheep and shepherding had been an intrinsic part of the world in which they lived for a very long time. Wasse (2000:192-193) notes evidence of fairly widespread sheep husbandry in the Neolithic era Levant (the area in which Canaan and Israel would later be established). Early nomadic and semi-nomadic settlements appeared to have been sustained, at least partly, through a herding economy. By the time we get to the Bronze Age, the Old Babylonian Temple Records appear to indicate a developed and large-scale sheep industry in the period, 2700-2580 B.C.E. (at least in regard to the temples and their estates).

As might be expected with such a trade, a vocabulary also developed that progressed beyond the purely generic terms for sheep and lamb and helped to provide a more

precise means of identifying specific ovine types. Lau (1966:25) identifies at least nine different terms being used in the temple records.** Malina and Rohrbaugh (1998:182) note that, even today, “Arab fellahin classify sheep in a bewildering set of categories.” Although care must be taken when applying this to Iron Age Levant and then post-exilic and Graeco-Roman Israel, the growth and use of such a specific technical vocabulary would strongly suggest a fairly advanced shepherding economy.

The records show that flocks tended to average between 50-100 head of sheep, although a number of flocks comprising over 200 are also recorded. The largest number of sheep under the control of one shepherd is 360 (Lau, 1966:16). What is interesting is the sheer number of sheep that were being processed through the temple system. For example, Tablet 160 refers to a herd of 1,215 sheep. Sheep from other sources were also processed. For example, during the reign of King Dungi of Uru (about 2700 B.C.E.), Tablet 161 records that three large flocks were received from Girsu; the first of these flocks being the largest and comprising 66,155 sheep, the other two herds being of 3,612 and 3,367 sheep. The total number of sheep in this consignment was therefore 73,134 – this is more than twice the figure for total number of sheep and lambs (32,856) in the entire UK for 2013 as stated by DEFRA (EBLEX, 2014:8).

Sheep and Empire

The significance of this, is that sheep were seen as an important and useful means of taxation for occupied territories and vassal states. Temples, such as those within the Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman Empires (not withstanding the temple in Jerusalem) needed to be serviced with good quality, living sheep. In other words, sheep husbandry was not necessarily for local consumption and use; large numbers would be exported to foreign power-bases to be used for sacrifice and consumption. Moreover, in order to meet these demands, land needed to be acquired.

Not all shepherd imagery was ‘pastoral’ – here an Akkadian king (left) with shepherd hat and staff subdues his enemies. Image: British Museum

The picture that begins to emerge coheres with those presented by authors such as Hanson and Oakman (1998: 116-119) and Freyne (1988: 94-95, 148-152) where land is taken away from those within the lower strata of society and coalesces into large estates, owned by (often absent) landlords. It would appear that, despite the concerns of the Deuteronomists to stem this tendency, this aggregation of land into estates owned by a wealthy élite and away from ownership by the general populace, applied as much to Second Temple period Israel as it did to the Roman estates described by Cato and Varro. The day to day management of such estates was undertaken by a strata of tenant workers, responsible (economically at least) to the land-owner.

The accumulation of land by the élite, whether members of the Jewish oligarchy or those of the occupying power, created a class of peasant labourers who depended upon their patronage to give them opportunities to subsist through work (see Matt. 20:1-16). Consequently, ownership of livestock becomes increasingly restricted to those who not only had the resources to buy them, but also the land upon which they can be kept – or could afford to rent for pasture land (See Cato’s On Agriculture CL).

This provides a context for us to explore the main characters in this teaching.

Reality and Romance of the Shepherd

The juxtaposition of the ‘shepherd’ (ποιμην) and the ‘hired worker’ (μισθωτος) is an interesting one – and one which some might find surprising being placed on the lips of Jesus.

The figure of the shepherd is an ancient one and would have been very familiar to those in the ancient world. However, this teaching would appear to be evoking a

romantic historical image rather than the realities of the time. In fact, for this metaphor to work, the depiction of the shepherd and sheep necessarily requires to be romanticised… everyone would know the fate that ultimately awaits those sheep and that, within the sheep industry of Roman Palestine, these sheep are principally an economic commodity.

For some reason, the good shepherd is contrasted here with a hired labourer and not, as the hearers might have expected, the figure of the ‘bad shepherd’; a common and pervading motif within the Jewish prophetic tradition (for example see, Ezekiel 34:1-10 and Jeremiah 23:1-2). The point being made is not about the relative merits of shepherds and their shepherding techniques (good v bad shepherding), but about ownership. We are repeatedly told that the shepherd is a ‘good’ shepherd precisely because he ownsthe sheep (vv. 3, 4, 12, 16); the corollary of which is that the μισθωτος (hired labourer) is not ‘good’ because the sheep do not belong to him and, as a consequence, he must therefore not care (μελω) for them (v. 13).

Commentaries generally point to the fairly clear inference that the hired hand’s interest in the sheep is purely in terms of financial gain (his wages) and that he has little regard for their well being. Malina and Rohrbaugh’s (1998:182) explanation for the peasant labourer’s action, based on Gen 31:39, that hired ‘shepherds’ were not responsible for losses caused by predation should be questioned. Although reflecting a later time, the Mishnah holds hired herders liable for compensation for any losses (see Schnackenburg, 1980: 296). The hired hand’s mercenary attitude is contrasted with that of the good shepherd who is depicted in highly romanticised terms; the shepherd will stay with his sheep and is prepared to give his life for them (in their place?). The power of such a statement lies, not only in its apparent absurdity, but also in the way it subverts the motives and practice of real shepherding, where the sheep are protected and nurtured in order to gain the best economic return for them from the market. Although apparently different, the shepherd’s relationship to the sheep is essentially the same as that with the hired hand; the sheep are commodities upon which their livelihoods depend.

This raises some interesting questions. The rhetoric employed in vv. 11-13 will be fairly familiar to 21st century ears in relation to private ownership and ‘people can’t be trusted with other people’s goods.’ Moreover, the emphasis upon the issue of ownership, places the shepherd within a much more privileged class than that of the hired worker. If our reading is correct, the majority of those tending sheep would not be those who can access the resources necessary for their purchase and upkeep, but would be labourers hired by tenant estate workers. The good shepherd of John 10 would be a very unusual figure (one more at home in the romance of historical legend than in reality).

Eschatological Reversal Reversed?

Carson (1991:387) is undoubtedly correct in his assertion that the μισθωτος is “primarily a foil to emphasise what is characteristic about the Good Shepherd.” Nevertheless, the choice of terms is interesting. Jesus’ sweeping accusations concerning the attitude and alleged conduct of peasant labourers could have stung deeply. For those belonging to this group (and it would be the majority***) it was the rhetoric of the élite and more to be expected from those like Cato who were speaking/writing from a position of power and privilege.

Making the hired worker/peasant labourer the antagonist in this story is significant as it is exactly this group of people that tended to feature as protagonists (either as role models or as examples for specific life experiences) within the Synoptic tradition (Matthew, Mark and Luke) of Jesus’ teaching. Within this tradition, it was often the landowners and powerful who were portrayed negatively (see for example, Lk 12: 16-20, 16: 19-31, 18: 1-8) In fact, it could be argued that the shepherds in Luke’s birth narrative, to whom the birth of Jesus was announced, would have probably been exactly the type of hired hands depicted in John 10; those that Luke has worshipping the infant Jesus are now presented, within the Johannine tradition, as being, at best, untrustworthy, irresponsible and mercenary and at worst antithetical to Jesus.

The Jesus of John 10 indicates not only the characteristic Johannine shift from the Synoptic presentation of Jesus as ‘the one who proclaims the Kingdom of God’ to ‘the one who proclaims himself’, but also a change in language and attitudes that would appear to reflect a more advantaged class than that predominantly found within the Synoptic tradition. For those more familiar with the Synoptic Jesus, who tends to be viewed as identifying with (and is indeed often identified with) the poor and dispossessed, this might be rather surprising.

* The other ‘I am’ statements can be found in: 6:35, 8:12, 11:25, 14:16 and 15:1. Although not strictly following the εγω ειμι formula, some also include 8:58.

** Lau (1966:25) observes that differentiation is made between; male lamb, female lamb, large sheep (perhaps ram), fat sheep, ram at age of puberty, pregnant ewe (though this is unsure), pubescent sheep, full grown tupped ewe, full grown pubescent – but perhaps not yet tupped – ewe. A further distinction is made between lambs, which Lau (1966:25) suggests might refer to whether they have been weaned or not.